User talk:Viper2k6

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -Jmh123 17:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Your questions
Since your questions have become lost in the bickering, let me answer them here. Wikipedia has over a million pages. Since thousands upon thousands of people edit Wikipedia, 24/7, you cannot expect the consistency you would (hopefully) find in a traditional encyclopedia. As you implied, Wikipedia has its limitations. Personally, I wouldn't rely on it as a resource if I felt that it was important to get the facts rights about any topic whatsoever. To the specifics of your questions: Pedophile Article Watch is not an article; it's a project page. It serves a completely different purpose. The other statement you quoted, from Pedophilia, is sourced; I saw two footnote numbers in the quote you brought over. Apparently the editors of that page found those sources to be satisfactory to support the statement you quoted. As the editors you are conversing with at Talk:child sexual abuse are not responsible for all of Wikipedia, and no human could be, the most useful approach would be take a look at the citations for the material you quoted and see if they might meet the standards for the child sexual abuse page, in which case you might suggest on Talk:child sexual abuse that they do and get feedback, especially as we did ask you for sources to support your suggested edits. Or, if you feel that Pedophilia needs changing, you could take that change up on Talk:pedophilia.

Different articles have different standards, depending upon the content and how highly contested they are. The standards at Whitest Kids U'Know are probably not as rigorous. Some articles, particularly articles on pop culture, permit pop culture sources, while the more scientific articles have different standards. Different standards apply to Ricky Martin than apply to Ryan Seacrest, simply because there are different editors involved. While the goal is that all material in Wikipedia be sourced properly, in reality there is considerably variation. Because child sexual abuse is a highly contested entry, we are applying particularly rigorous standards at the moment. It would not surprise me to find that Pedophilia is a contested article as well. It's a good idea as a new editor to take a look around, get to know how things work, make some minor corrections here and there. Then find an area that you know something about, preferably something about which you don't have a strong personal bias, and make a contribution. Jumping right into a page, or a more general topic, that is fraught with controversy is probably not a good choice if your goal is to be of value to the Wikipedia project. -Jmh123 00:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks!
Thanks for the note. No, you didn't seem arrogant. Sometimes you just have to read a room, or a Talk page. :) There's been a lot of conflict, so it helps if you approach things with that in mind, look at the big picture, and work extra hard to communicate. People don't always respond well to someone who walks right in and starts making major changes.  -Jmh123 05:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Adolescence article
Yeah, the low quality on some very important articles here is really a shame. Articles like adolescence, this is something that should be so good it's a featured article. I'm surprised that section didn't get reverted. There are also a boatload of medical articles concerning conditions and those things that are basically just a stub. Maybe a couple years down the line this site will be solid and free of amateurish passages like that one. NIRVANA2764 01:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello again
I just moved your new section on the CSA page, as people are already talking about the topic you proposed. In addition, I'd suggest that the more specific you can be, the more you'll be heard. Which specific statements and citations from the other article do you feel are important. And can you bring anything new to the table? It isn't likely that folks are going to copy that section whole from the other entry, and I know that's not what you're suggesting, but people are not going to be inclined to look at every note on that section any more than they're going to be inclined to look at DP's multitude of citations on brain chemistry. His goal was to shut down the conversation, and it worked, but I don't think that's yours. -Jmh123 17:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not too late to do it this time. Just edit or add to your comment. -Jmh123 18:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's Birthday
is a sensitive topic. Google WikiTruth, a site devoted to wikibashing, that oddly enough has a wikisplanation. Or something -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 05:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)